jimcool59Dec 6, 2012

Ooops! I meant bambi08757

jimcool59Dec 6, 2012

Donedidit: You sir or mam as it may be, nailed it! Well spoken. But now what worries me is his lack of being able to interpt such a simply written law. Like what or where did he study, G.I Joe comic books? This is kid stuff to any law student or any public for that matter.

bambi08757Dec 6, 2012

Donedidit : You are quoting the law and that is a fact, however, you are not correctly interperting that statute. It does say that a Medical Professional will take the blood (not the officer), but that only means that it must be DONE by a Medical Professional but it does not protest to dictate to a hospital which Medical Professional must do it. If that hospital has a lab tech that normally pulls blood, then the officer would have to wait until a lab tech was available. To bad for his luck. He abused his authority of which he had none in that hospital. He was correctly punished for his abuse.

IfyousaysoDec 6, 2012

Anonemoose, try finish reading the rest of that statute you referenced, GS 20-139.1(c). Then answer your own question you posed. The General Statutes are not a smorgasbord of laws that you can pick and choose which parts you want to apply to support a case.

jimcool59Dec 5, 2012

So how did this cop come to pick her, was she even qualifed most hospitals have the lab tecks do it. Someone may have to draw it but what law says her. Gestapo tactics, Hey U! in the white skirt, cause I said so! Hands behind the your back NOW!

jimcool59Dec 5, 2012

Fraid not. He can even refuse the testing himself. Unless they have a warent for a specific person to do the drawing of blood then the cop now becomes the crimnal in this case. Two other officers with the city agree and so does this yo-yo cops boss.Personally I,d love to see it go to trail. You can,t fool me kid.

anonemooseDec 5, 2012

20-139.1(c) Blood and Urine for Chemical Analysis. – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a blood or urine test is specified as the type of chemical analysis by a law enforcement officer, a physician, registered nurse, emergency medical technician, or other qualified person shall withdraw the blood sample and obtain the urine sample, and no further authorization or approval is required.

So, who was really right? Legally she was required to draw the blood.

jimcool59Dec 5, 2012

"Innocent until proven GUILTY"Thats presumed innocent until proven guilty and only then in a court of law. And I haven,t seen one sentence until yours mentioning anything about it being easy, If fact it most likely is not or you would be doing it instead of us finding you here misquoting law. If he was really doing his job he would have manned up and arrested himself for unlawful detention and causing a public disturbance.

mmaneyDec 5, 2012

Innocent until proven GUILTY, He was doing his job and if all the people on here doing the bashing thinks Law enforcement is so easy then go do these guy's job. Please